Here we are this morning, maybe the last time for many weeks to come, because today the Republican majority closes down the House for 5 weeks, heading home after months spent stacking the deck for the special interests, mortgaging our future with their tax scam for the rich and dismantling families' health care.

Americans have watched House Republicans relentlessly and cruelly work to drive up their health cost. Republicans voted to destroy protections for people with pre-existing conditions in their Trumpcare bill, but now they're trying to destroy those life-saving protections in the courts.

In addition, instead of enabling the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, Republicans handed tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the same Big Pharma companies hiking prices up for seniors and families.

The President, during the campaign, you probably remember when he said he was going to 'negotiate like crazy' to lower prescription drug prices, enable the Secretary to do that. As I've said to you before, 'negotiating like crazy' means not negotiating at all, because that's not what happened.

As you know, the President made a statement which we anticipated was going to be an initiative to negotiate. Instead, it was he pulled his punch, and that day the Pharma stocks went through the roof. Don't take it from me, just look at the market.

And year after year, Republicans have worked to shatter the sacred promise of Medicare and Medicaid. This is really sad, because these are pillars of financial and health security for America's working families.

Monday marks the 53rd year, 53rd anniversary since President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, delivering essential guarantees of health and economic security for our seniors and their families. The operative word there is 'guarantees.'

But the Republicans in Congress, and particularly Speaker Ryan in his budgets that he put forth, want to remove the guarantee. If you have no guarantee, you have no Medicare. You have a voucher. Go, seniors and others, shop for your health care, you have no guarantee.

But some people don't think that Medicare is at risk. 'Oh, the Republicans would never do that.' Oh, no, they would, and they have it in their budget. They've had it in their Ryan budget again and again.

But don't just rest on that. In the '90s and since, the Republicans have said Medicare should 'wither on the vine. Should wither on the vine. So they have no commitment to Medicare. The only commitment they made in their budget was to turn it into a voucher.

After adding $2 trillion to the deficit, giving the big tax breaks, 83 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, tax cuts for corporations, some of which enable them to send jobs overseas, then they have over a $2 trillion deficit, with the tax cuts plus interest on that money.

So where do they go get the money" Medicare and Medicaid. Over $2 trillion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Seniors and those who depend on Medicare and Medicaid know that you're losing your benefits to give a tax break to the rich. That's the set of priorities of the Republicans in Congress.

And as House Republicans dismantle the pillars of America's retirement security, they are also blocking action to protect our democracy against Russian attacks. President Trump's disgraceful, dangerous and damaging behavior with Putin in Helsinki has put the House GOP's coverup efforts into overdrive.

Last night, House Republicans escalated their effort to shut down Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russia's attack on our elections by filing a resolution to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.

Today, House Republicans blocked a vote on Congressmen Engel and Connolly's SECURE Our Democracy Act, which would punish foreign actors who are attacking our elections.

And last week, the GOP refused to provide a single penny, an additional penny to secure our elections, eliminating State election funding and then voting against a Democratic measure to restore the funding in committee and on the floor.

What is at stake is nothing less than the integrity of our democracy itself, the fundamental responsibility to ensure that every vote is counted, that every eligible voter can vote, and that every vote is counted as cast.

Three election technology - did you know this" - three election technology vendors control the machinery for 92 percent of the total eligible voting population. This is a massive vulnerability, and it requires greater oversight and transparency of our election system. Three vendors, 92 percent of the system.

House Republicans refuse to act for any oversight, any funding, because they are now more concerned about covering up President Trump's activities than defending our democracy from foreign attack. It seems they took an oath not to protect and defend the Constitution, which guarantees the right to vote, but an oath of office to protect and defend Donald Trump.

On protecting our democracy from Russia, on lowering prescription drug costs, on rebuilding America's infrastructure, and returning checks and balances to Washington, the contrast between House Republicans and Democrats could not be clearer. At every turn, House Republicans are selling out the American people to put themselves and their special interest donors first. That's a raw deal for seniors and working families. It's a raw deal for the air our children breathe, the water they drink.

Democrats are here to offer A Better Deal for the people: Better Jobs, Better Wages, and a Better Future for all, for the people, for lowering your health care costs and prescription drug prices, for increasing your pay through strong economic growth by rebuilding America, for cleaning up corruption to make Washington work for you.

Over the coming weeks, House Democrats will continue that drumbeat across America. Thank you.

Any questions" No?

Yes, sir"

* * *

Q: Thank you, Madam Leader. Given that the effort to impeach the Deputy Attorney General is unlikely to bear fruit, what do you think is the motivation for the drama that may or may not ensue today?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I don't know, but what I've heard is Jim Jordan wants to take attention away from the scrutiny that he is under in Ohio. That could be part of it.

The fact is that truth and fact and data and evidence have never been something that the Republicans have sought or based their decision-making on. So they would want to hurt Rosenstein so that they could hurt the Mueller investigation.

But hopefully, saner minds will prevail on the Republican side and they won't bring this up. If they did, we welcome their voting on undermining our democracy.

Yes, ma'am" You had a question?

Q: I was going to ask about that as well. Just kind of how much do we think that politics is at play here, you know, backing up this effort to push to do this?

Leader Pelosi. Rosenstein is a Republican appointee. He was appointed by the President of the United States. And the attack on Rosenstein, of course, is an attack on the Mueller investigation.

And it is something that just when you think you have seen it all, the Republicans have no shame to go to a place where they would undermine our judicial system.

Well, it's a statement. What they're making is a statement: President Trump is above the law, period. It's a sad thing. But, again, if they bring it up, they have a price to pay for going that route. Hopefully, in the interest of our country, our system of checks and balances, our system of law and order, they won't.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: We've seen over the past week or so that Democrats are talking more about Russia and about sanctions and about protecting the investigation. Is that in response to what happened in Helsinki?

Leader Pelosi. Yes.

Q: Is there a breaking point that's happened?

Leader Pelosi. No, I think it's about Helsinki. It's unavoidable. The fact is that our elections are about what it means to people and their families. It's about their pay. It's about their costs. It's about their aspirations and their apprehensions, their hopes and dreams and fears.

And so when we go out there, people are not really talking about Donald Trump, they're talking what they have to offer, what their purpose is, what they know about their subject, how they intend to make a difference, based on listening to the concerns of constituents.

The fact is, though, we have a responsibility to protect and defend the United States of America. It's in our Constitution. It's our oath of office. So, when the President presents himself in such a dangerous, destructive and disgraceful way, it evokes a response.

And he did get one from John McCain, who said of the press conference: 'Today's press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by any American president in memory.'

So yeah, it would evoke a response, but especially since it comes right back to your question. It's about an investigation into the disruption of our elections.

And the President really made a fool of himself with Putin there, being so solicitous and obsequious, and then claiming that he said 'wouldn't' instead of 'would' or 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,' whatever that was. But it's all about the integrity of our elections.

People have different views on foreign policy, but when it comes to trying to stop an investigation and to ignore the culpability of Putin and Russia in all of this, how do you explain that" We have to defend the Constitution. It's the oath we take.

Yes, sir?

Q: You said a moment ago that there would be a price to pay if Republicans go this route of trying to --

Leader Pelosi. I think the American people would speak out on that.

Q: What price?

Leader Pelosi. I think the American people would make a judgment about it.

I am a firm believer in the goodness and greatness of the American people. They respect our Constitution. They care about it. There's a real interest in checks and balances in our system, and that involves three branches of government.

This is something that would be a step very, very far. It's defining the Republicans in a way that no words we could say could ever convince anyone. They've spoken for themselves.

Q: And if I could follow up, and yet your recess packet which you delivered last week is all focused on the economy.

Leader Pelosi. That's right. That's right. It's all focused there because that's what the elections are about. They're about the economy. All of this speaks for itself. We didn't even know about this yesterday, but it isn't worth talking about.

What is the ballot, how does the ballot, ramifications of what happens at the ballot affect your life when it comes to legislation?

Walter Reuther, someone who marched with Martin Luther King, he said the ballot box and the lunchbox cannot be separated. Important advances that are made at the negotiating table can be erased legislatively, depending on what happens at the ballot.

So, this is about their lives, their assuming their responsibilities, how public policy recognizes their aspirations as well as their apprehensions, their hopes and dreams and their fears. That's what the election is about.

And that's why we are there, to show the contrast when it comes to raising wages, lowering cost, being fair to America's working families. That is the big difference between Democrats and Republicans.

We would hope that there would be Republicans who would join, as Senator McCain, and I don't know if you saw Senator Frist's article about respecting the Mueller investigation. Some have spoken out, but we would hope that that would not be partisan, but would be bipartisan.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: Leader Pelosi, a number of your Democratic colleagues have talked about the need for change in leadership at the top, particularly in your position. What is your answer to them?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think we have a lot of issues that are very important in our country right now, and what happens in the House Democratic leadership will happen after the election.

But I feel very confident in the support that I have in the House Democratic Caucus. And my focus is on winning this election, because so much is at stake.

And any other motivation, the fact that this President, this administration, with the support of some in Congress, Republicans in Congress, thinks it's okay to take little babies out of the arms of their mothers means more to me than anything in terms of what position I may hold in another Congress. It means this isn't what our country is about.

So, that's what it is. It is the least important part of anything that we're doing, with all due respect to your question.

Q: Thank you.

Leader Pelosi. Yes, sir?

Q: Along those lines, it seems certain that the government won't be able to meet the deadline the judge set for reuniting all the migrant kids with their families today. What do you think the consequence should be?

Leader Pelosi. Well, your question - in case you didn't hear - is that the government may not be able to meet the standards set by the judge to reunite families.

Let me just back up for a moment. [Senator] Chuck Schumer and I, a while ago, some number of weeks ago, wrote to the administration to say: Stop the separation of families, reunite families and do so in a way that does not reunite them in a detention center. Reunite them the way they had been reunited before, as they awaited the decision of the court or whatever it happened to be, asylum and refugee status, whatever. That was what we asked for.

The judge insisted upon the reuniting. I think separations have probably stopped by now. But just the very act of separating those children from their parents, it's a bad thing. It's a very bad thing. It has consequences on those children. How can you answer to that?

So, the fact that they lost the identification, they - this or that - they weren't careful, is making it harder for them to reunite people. In fact, in some cases they're saying people have committed crimes when it might be a visa, a status violation. It isn't about our values as a country.

Certainly, if somebody has committed a crime that is a serious crime, then that's something to be considered. But let's carefully look at all of these things and judge them one by one.

I am haunted, and that's why I answer your question the way I do, I am haunted by the fact that this administration told me last year, in the fall, that they were going to take the children away from their parents, from their moms, because their mothers were unfit. They were unfit because they took their children across the desert, which is a dangerous thing to do.

My response was: 'Does it mean anything to you that these mothers had no option, that they were leaving a place where murder and death were practically inevitable, rape and gang violence were the order of the day, and that going across the desert is a less dangerous option for them, the only recourse they had?'

'Oh, no, we know better. These mothers are unfit and we're going to take these children and put them in foster care or whatever.' Last year.

So this was a thought-out policy. This wasn't something that evolved spontaneously because of one thing or another.

This is a country that professes to be people of faith. Where is it in the Bible that says, or the Koran or whatever your confessional approach is - where does it say we take children out of the arms of their parents and that is a model for the world to see of us?

So, my whole thing in politics has always been, I'm a mother of five and it drove me crazy as a mom to see that one in five children in America lived in poverty in our country, that one in five children in America went to sleep hungry at night. That was my purpose. That's what pulled me into the political arena, knowing the needs and hopes and dreams of children and seeing that poverty having such an impact on their lives.

So, that has been my driving force here. But it is sad to see when they want to cut CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, they want to cut SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], taking food out of the mouths of babies, the things that they do to the air our children breathe and the water they drink. It's my motivation. And that's what makes me work every day, all the time, for better policy and to do the politics to win the election to change this.

But to take it to the place where they're taking children away from their parents" And then even when they're reunited months later, the damage in many cases is done. And the responsibility to try to make up for that is something that we all share.

Q: Should any officials face a legal consequence" Should anyone go to jail for not meeting the deadline?

Leader Pelosi. Well, that would be up to the judge and the courts. But I think that they're trying to make a case that they've done what they can do.

This is a policy of the President of the United States. They're executing policy. So, when people talk about ICE and this or that, yeah, we want them to behave in a better way, but they are enacting policy of the President of the United States and the Republicans in the Congress of the United States.

Their doorstep of responsibility is the policy. You change the policy, you change the activities of those people. So, there has to be just a clarity in the public mind as to how we got to this place.

I remember when they were doing some of their bad stuff, that we had - and this is about the refugee and asylum issue - we had testimony from the American Association of Evangelicals who have been so good on immigration. They testified, their representative, he testified that the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program is the 'crown jewel of American humanitarianism.' The American Association of Evangelicals. It is a view shared, of course, by many religious institutions, the Catholic Conference of Bishops and all the rest.

So, for this to be the policy of the United States of America and then for us to say, should somebody who's implementing the policy go to jail, no, we have to change the policy, and elections have a way of doing that. But I wish that this were not what it's come down to.

A large number of Republicans in the polls support the President's policy of taking children away from their parents. Perhaps they just don't know the facts.

But being a mom and knowing that bond, and many of you are parents, moms or dads, just think, suppose somebody came to your house and said, 'We're taking your baby away because we think, in trying to protect your child, you didn't do what we thought you should do.'

What business is it of the Government of the United States to say, 'We're sending your child to a foster home because you decided to escape rape, murder and gang violence to protect your child?'

Any other questions" One more?

Yes, sir?

Q: I was just wondering, what do you think are appropriate consequences for the administration not following through on this court imposed deadline?

Leader Pelosi. This was just the question that was asked.

Well, certainly we'll see. Of course, it's happening the day that we're leaving. I wish that we could be here so that we could have what I would think would be a values based discussion about who we are as a country when it comes to family, which is a value that we all share.

What I said to the gentleman is that this is the policy of the President of the United States. It's a diversion from how this was all dealt with before.

We have a responsibility to protect our borders, let's make no mistake about that, and Democrats have been strong on that point. All of our borders.

In fact, I said to some of you before that when we had the 9/11 incident and the Commission was formed and they made their recommendations, they made recommendations to protect America, but the Republicans would never take them up. And some of it was about our borders. The Republicans would never take them up.

It took us to win the election. That was in '04 when they made the recommendations, the summer of '04. It took until we won in '06, the first bill on the floor, H.R. 1, to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to protect our country.

So this whole thing, it has a lot of, shall we say, cultural aspects to it. But if you want to change what's happening, you've got to change the policy.

And this policy is not something that emerged, as I said before. It was a decision last fall when they said, 'If you are a mom who wants to escape rape, murder, and gang violence for your child and you try to come for asylum to the United States, you are unfit and we're taking your child away from you.'

Thank you all very much.

Oh, have a good August. As we go out there, we intend to own August, to own August, in terms of having the American people, in a unifying way, recognize that this isn't who we are as a country, to take children away from their parents. That it isn't who we are as a government that will say, 'Medicare and Medicaid should wither on the vine,' that we're saying to people, 'Your health costs should go up because we have an ideological opposition to the Affordable Care Act.'

So it's going to be an interesting time. We intend to own August, so we own the ground as we go into the hundred days before the election.